Friday, 20 December 2013

Details of the central London bike grid have been published now, and looking at the proposals positively, I think there are some excellent routes, and some excellent plans for these routes. In terms of laying a solid foundation, I think it represents a fairly decent start.

The problem is – as TfL acknowledge – that the routes don't cohere properly, for one thing, and they don't necessarily provide good access to some key destinations, for another thing. But these are not insurmountable problems.

What would need to be done in order to "introduce" a much denser network? I can show you what I think would need to happen in Westminster, and before too long I should be able to show you what I think would need to happen throughout the rest of the central London area.

It is too late to change it now, but the map above was prepared before the details of the central London grid were published. When the time comes for me to draw up the next incarnation of the map, there are already some things I am planning to do differently. I think the main thing to bring to your attention now is the omission of a CSH route through Regents Park. It didn't appear in the Westminster map, and wasn't therefore included above.

The animation sequence starts with Westminster's plans. Obviously I want to use as many of the officially-proposed routes as possible, but some of them are only properly useful for local journeys, and I am looking at this strictly from a strategic point of view. In any case, I need to be able to assign a colour to every route which features in my design. By necessity, therefore, I have to be selective.

The next frame in the sequence shows those routes from Westminster's plans which I have been able to find useful. And last of all there is the latest version of my design. It goes without saying, but I apply the same caveat which accompanied TfL's plans, namely that the proposed routes are not fixed and unchangeable. Indeed, until very recently, I had incorporated a route along Vauxhall Bridge Road. Such is the flexibility of compass colours, however, that it is possible to shift things around a little bit without diminishing the quality of the overall design in any way.

In terms of the main roads, as Val Shawcross explained to the Commons transport select committee, "There is relatively little mystery and a lot of consensus in London around what does need to be done."

I think Doug Gordon, author of the website Brooklyn Spoke, has it exactly right when he talks about the need for "clarity of design".

Speaking about the cycleway pictured above, as characterised by coloured paint and physical separation, Doug says that these designs don't take very long to process. He said, "It's – Oh, I go here. You don't even have to think about it."

He explained that when you're cycling down a street, you don't always have very long to make complicated decisions. "You just want those choices to be made very, very clear for you," he added.

Sam Saunders of Bristol takes a similar view. "The development of a settled culture of city transport will depend on consistency, predictability and regular physical cues," he remarked. "Consciously wondering what rules or possibilities are likely in a given situation, while trying to find a route or deal with an immediate problem, overloads the attention span, increases anxiety and increases errors – for all."

The question remains, however, until such time as high-quality infrastructure can be installed, what can done to make all the various rules or possibilities "very, very clear" for people?

Sunday, 15 December 2013

Each year, the Department for Transport calculates the total volume of traffic (for each junction-to-junction link) on the major road network. This is separate to the studies carried out by Transport for London and the London boroughs, incidentally.

The Annual Average Daily Flow (AADF) figures show the number of vehicles that use a given stretch of road on an average day of the year. The busiest road in Westminster is not in fact the Westway (77 798), as I had supposed, but Park Lane, with an average of just over 100 000 vehicle movements a day.

Anyway, I am looking at Westminster's proposals for a central London bike grid. As things stand, what the Westminster network amounts to is a couple of CSHs, some back street routes, some routes through parks, and a route alongside the canal.

Now I'm a big fan of these 'quietway' routes. Whenever I cycle in London, I try to use nothing else. But there are certain journeys I need to make from time to time which it is simply not possible to make other than by the main roads. In any event, there is much more to it than this.

Key: Red—Yes Blue—No

The map above shows all of the junction-to-junction links on the major road network with an average of more than 750 bicycle movements per day. In red are those sections which it is proposed be incorporated into the bike grid; in blue, not.

To be clear, the DfT study is mostly concerned with what's happening on the major road network, and so it is no surprise that parallel routes do not feature in the map above. Even so, there is quite a lot of blue on this map, and not very much red, as you can see.

Actually I was a little taken aback to see Park Lane on this map (912 cycle journeys per day). Clearly some people regard being able to go quickly as preferable to most everything else. Be that as it may, there are something like five thousand cycle movements a day on the parallel route in Hyde Park (source). Given that it is simultaneously direct and pleasant, improving the quality of this route would very much be my priority.

With only limited funds available, should the red-coloured

routes be developed before the black-coloured routes?

The black-coloured routes shown above featured in the first map that we looked at. These routes are already functional, and fairly popular with cyclists.

The red-coloured routes are not yet functional, not in their entirety, at least. Even so, would you please take a moment to consider this perspective from Mark Syndenham of the Edinburgh Bike Station:

"Most people view a place through the prism of their usual journey, which is generally made on the main roads. Maps contribute to this world view. Any regular map of a town will show the main roads in bold, and these effectively become the 'skeleton' of the town, with everything else seemingly built around them. This elevates them to a status that they don't deserve. Why is an A road any more important than a B road or a path across a path? It is all viewed from the perspective of the motor car, and it constrains how people think and view their surroundings, and therefore pre-determines how they travel from A to B."

The point is that if alternative routes become available, people can decide for themselves which routes suit them best. That is to say, give people all of the necessary route information, and then let them make their own minds up which way they want to go.

It is very important to bear in mind that, for this strategy to work, it is essential that there is both density and connectivity of routes. If not, there really isn't a 'choice' at all.

Another thing to bear in mind is that there are instances when the back street route is not able to serve as anything like a viable alternative. One such case in point is Quietway 19.

Three ways of going from A to a

Going from the 'A' of the A308 to the 'a' of Soho Square is 2.7 miles by car (the black-coloured route).

Via the green-coloured route, it is 0.91 miles from the 'A' of the A308 to the point where Quietway 19 starts. The length of the 'quietway' route is 2.45 miles. From A to a, then, the journey distance via the green-coloured / 'quietway' route is 3.36 miles. This is about two-thirds of a mile further than the main road route.

With the green-coloured route, the journey-distance from A to a is 2.77 miles, or about two-and-a-half per cent further than the black-coloured route.

Coming back the other way, from a to A, the journey distance by car is actually 3.23 miles, and via the Quietway 3.51 miles (both routes not shown). The return journey via the green-coloured route would also be a bit further, but only by something like an extra 150 metres.

The DfT data shows that cycle traffic on Piccadilly makes up nearly 6% of the total traffic between Hyde Park Corner and St James Street, and over 18% of the total traffic between St James Street and Piccadilly Circus. Moreover, according to the Levenes cycle injury map, there have been just three serious incidents on Piccadilly since 2005 (each involving children, remarkably).

More than 2 000 cyclists a day use Piccadilly, and for this—no doubt very experienced—group of people there is no practical or realistic alternative route available. Does, therefore, a route along Piccadilly feature in Westminster's plans for a central London bike grid? No, it does not.

It upsets me, frankly, that an organisation which purports to be "The voice of cyclists in London" has so little to say on behalf of the people in the middle. For most of the time that I have been trying to deal with them, they have mainly been concerned to represent the interests of the commuter cyclist (the Strong and Fearless). Indeed, it was only a couple of years ago that the London Cycling Campaign were seriously considering changing their name to 'London Cyclists'.

Just in time, however, the Chief Executive was changed instead. Picking up on the mood of the bloggers, the LCC then radically shifted tack and began to speak up for the kind of cyclist who needs "proper provision" (the Interested but Concerned). However, given where we are now, and how far we need to go, ensuring that this group is properly provided for can only realistically be undertaken as part of a long-term plan. In the short-term, it is the Enthused and Confident group which holds the key.

After Katja Leyendecker gave evidence to a Commons transport select committee, she later wrote: "If anything, the point I did not make strongly enough at the Committee hearing was about the importance of leadership in assessing risks and hazards. Sounds boring? It's not. Laying firm foundations by getting the things right that have a big impact (policy, strategy, plans and engineering road design and layouts) is vital."

"But you were literally here." (video)
Considering where the repeat markers have been positioned, it seems reasonable
to insist that the cyclist should indeed have been riding in the gutter.

Another one of those "vital" things is that cyclists are visible at junctions. Essentially what this means is that cyclists need to be positioned in the right place relative to the motor traffic.

It is also necessary to caution against giving people the wrong impression. One of the problems with the CSH routes, says a report in The Atlantic Cities, is that they provide "the illusion of safety". Thus (says Cycling: the way ahead):

"According to its specific features and its resources, each town will have to choose its priorities or specific actions to take. Reproducing apparently effective action taken elsewhere could have negative consequences if the concerted and coherent programme on which such actions have been based is not taken into account. On the contrary, it is preferable to draw inspiration from known
examples with due caution."

It's going to take time. Even with all the will in the world, it's going to take time. Mark Treasure reported that earlier this year he cycled around Utrecht and Amsterdam with Mark Wagenbuur (bicycle dutch) and Marc van Woudenberg (amsterdamize):

"They were at pains to point out to me the bad bits of their cities, the areas that haven’t got around to being changed yet. These are quite ‘British’ in their appearance, with no cycle infrastructure to speak of, or that disappears when you need it, or with parked cars that have to be negotiated out and around, and relatively fast motor traffic in close proximity. Principally, these were main roads."

If you haven't yet had a chance to read Mark's report in full, it is well worth a look. But my overwhelming sense, both from this blogpost and the video which inspired it, is that deciding is the hardest part. I would also add that this decision was almost certainly easier to make in 1970s Holland than in modern-day Britain.

Closing remarks

Johan Diepens of the Dutch Cycling Embassy has said that in planning for cycling, the critical thing is to design your network correctly. "Everything else is trivial," he said. There doesn't seem to be any controversy about this issue now. It is therefore necessary to ask why roads like Piccadilly have not been incorporated into the central London bike grid.

Surely it cannot be because installing ASLs at junctions and laying repeat markers on the road surface would be more trouble than it's worth, is it?

Tuesday, 10 December 2013

An article on this morning's Today programme, which I pass on without further comment:

Children aren't doing enough exercise, and the reason is that there isn't a national plan to encourage them. Now, some academics and supporters, including the West Ham manager Sam Allardyce, are saying that the consequence is—and I quote them—"child neglect", because they're not being told of the risk of chronic disease that comes as a result of lack of exercise. Well, is that true? Dr Richard Wheeler, a consultant in sport and exercise medicine at University College Hospital in London has made that claim in the British Journal of Sports Medicine (he's also the club doctor, incidentally, at West Ham). Tim Lawton is the former Children's Minister, and I spoke to them both, Dr Wheeler first.

We believe that what we found is that there has been a persistent failure from this government and former governments to meet child's basic physical and psychological needs which are likely to result in serious impairment of a child's health and development.

Let's take it as agreed that children could do with more exercise, and that people who take more exercise when they're young are likely to avoid some potential major health problems later in life. Let's just assume that for the sake of this argument. What do you think government can and should do? because that is where some people will take issue with you.

I can understand that. You know, children don't choose who their parents are, they don't choose what they do at school, they don't choose which school they go to, they don't choose their socio-economic class, they don't choose what access they have to facilities. The bottom line is, is that children go to school, there's a massive opportunity at school to do something about this, and to improve the physical literacy and physical education of our children. At the moment there's no statutory obligation for schools to even provide physical education and physical literacy, and Ofsted don't monitor it. At the moment its importance is utterly neglected. And when you compare that against the risks—if we agree that there is no debate there in terms of the risks of continuing to do this—it meets the government's own definition of child neglect. And the level of finance is pitiful.

Tim Lawton, what do you make of it?

I don't know whether the British Journal of Sports Medicine is trying to promote a Christmas Special, but this sort of sensationalist story is really unhelpful. I agree, we need to do much more for kids and sport, making it a part of their growing-up, something they want to do, because it's fun and enjoyable as well as being good for them. But child neglect is a persistent failure to meet a child's basic physical and psychological needs resulting in serious impairment of health. That is a world of difference from kids not doing enough sport at the moment. And to put it in these terms—and this finger-wagging—which actually Dr Wheeler in articles himself has countered against in the past—is really unhelpful. The majority of kids who are taken into care in this country are for reasons of neglect, so is Dr Wheeler suggesting we should be taking millions more children into the care of the state? because that's not the solution.

I really don't agree with that at all. The government has a responsibility to do something about this, policy-makers have an opportunity to do something about this; they are aware of the harms. There are children as young as seven now that are developing Type-II diabetes. We've got one-fifth of children that enter primary school are obese; levels of children that are actually meeting the recommended guidelines for physical activity to confer basic health benefits are pitifully low; we rank very, very poorly in this country in terms of child health behind most of our European counterparts. To focus on sport and not physical activity I think is very naïve and short-sighted, and it demonstrates a lack of understanding of child's health, well-being and their development. There's an opportunity to do something here. What else is there that we can do—unlike physical activity—that helps improve the grades of children, that improves their behaviour at school, that can improve their happiness, and it reduces the risk of numerous diseases ranging from Type-II diabetes to cardio-vascular disease and to various types of cancer? There is no other "best buy".

Hang on, hang on, you've had a good go there, I just want to bring Tim Lawton in. Leaving aside the question of whether "child neglect" is the appropriate phrase—you've made your views plain on that. As far as the effect of a lack of exercise or a bad diet on the future of the children is concerned, where do you think government does have a responsibility?

I agree with most of the diagnosis that we've just heard from Dr Wheeler, I just don't agree with the solution. And absolutely we need to have more sport and physical exercise, and that is the job of schools, but it's also the job of parents. I've got three very sporty children, because they've had schools that have pushed sport—

But Dr Wheeler made the point earlier that children can't choose their parents, and there are many children who don't get that opportunity—and no doubt you encouraged your kids in sport, you know, lucky them—but there are many children who don't get that encouragement and, on top of that, are stuck with a diet—not their choice—they're fed junk food—which does them potentially quite a lot of harm in the long-run.

And that's why it's about educating the parents as well as educating the kids themselves. This does start at home, but we also need to make sure that schools are giving more space and more time for kids to be able to do more physical activity, and sport and competitive sport—and that's why the government's introduced these school games, which have been a tremendous success. But finger-wagging, accusing the government of mass neglect of children just deeply undermines the seriousness of this problem. The way you don't do it is by making physical activity and sport at school another mandatory activity that you do whether you like it or not, and you put kids off from a very early age from actually engaging in sport, enjoying sport, and wanting to do it because its fun as well as for all the benefits that brings as well as sociability and physical and health as well, and this really is alarmist and unhelpful.

Westminster’s Commissioner for Transportation, Martin Low, has argued that the city has to overcome some unique challenges when it comes to cycling. “It’s extremely difficult in Westminster to try and cater for the needs of all road users," he told The House, "so a balance has to be struck.”

Mr Low cites “a huge amount of kerbside activity”—in particular hotel taxis and business deliveries—as one of the main things standing in the way of widespread cycle lane provision. However, he also accepts that changes need to be made to the way in which Westminster provides for cyclists.

The council welcomes the Mayor’s proposed new east-west route, he said. It has also used its new draft cycling strategy to lay out its initial thoughts as to how it might make a contribution to the Mayor’s 300km central London bike grid.

Westminster's design for a central London bike grid. The primary routes
and alternative routes are both shown.

At least on paper, the council seems to making a good deal of effort to comply with the Mayor’s Vision for Cycling. If that plan were fully implemented, says Mike Cavenett of the London Cycling Campaign, the capital would be a significantly better place to cycle.

"We recognise it’s going to take time," Mike acknowledged. "But that vision, from a policy point of view, is a very strong document.”

Julian Huppert MP shows a similar cautious optimism: “I think the Mayor’s Vision is very good. We need to make sure it’s delivered and actually becomes reality. There’s more to do, and there will always be more to do, but it’s good to see that there is some real drive.”

Ultimately, only the coming months and years will tell whether planned improvements make the jump from blueprints to concrete. Until that happens, Westminster’s cyclists would do well to follow Boris Johnson’s advice on riding around some of the capital’s nastier roads: “Keep your wits about you”.

* * *

First off, I very much welcome the way that Westminster is approaching this. I like what Martin Low is saying as well. Secondly, the proposed bike grid is not nearly as weak as I had initially supposed. Danny Williams' blog has identified pretty much all of the rickety bits, but I don't think it would take a lot for these to get sorted out. Thirdly, it looks like a denser network could quite easily be "introduced". I say this because with the currently-proposed programme of works, it would appear that there are already plans in place to deal with most of the difficult non-functioning bits.

The non-functioning bits of an extended network are shown in red and green.

Danny says: "The strategy is to deliver what Westminster calls a network of 'well-signposted, direct and continuous cycle routes' through central London."

Now we can measure whether a route is direct or not by considering the alternatives. If a route is not direct, then, as Michael Robinson pointed out on Danny's blog, it "will need to be really good, or else people will just ignore it".

The map on the left shows in red the route proposed by Westminster, and in green an alternative route.

Actually, the officially-proposed route is a combination of a couple of routes, but no matter.

The red-coloured route is nearly half-a-kilometre (0.29 mi) further than the green-coloured route.

The problem with the green-coloured route is the one-way section on Praed Street / Chapel Street.

Two views of Praed Street, looking north-east and back the other way (Google StreetView)

Does London want to have two-way cycling on streets like Praed Street? That cyclist in the photo on the right evidently thinks it already does!

On streets like Praed Street, the issue is not so much safety, but access. I would emphasise that it makes precisely no difference to me personally whether a route goes this way or that way. Truly, no difference at all. But this said, when planning the network there are certain criteria which it is very important to hold on to. Most important of all, I would suggest, is encapsulated in this quote from LTN 2/08:

Networks should serve all the main destinations, and new facilities should offer an advantage in terms of directness and / or reduced delay compared with existing provision.

The thing about it is, actually, the authorities could easily facilitate two-way cycling on streets like Praed Street, and here's how. Firstly make the speed limit 20mph, and secondly sort out the junctions at either end.

A view of Praed Street on the left, and Chapel Street on the right.

All right, all right, sorting out the junctions might be relatively quite a difficult thing to do, but the point I am working towards is that this task doesn't need to be nearly as difficult as the 'segregati' would make it. Westminster have taken some big steps in the right direction, and I think it is incumbent upon everybody who is interested in making London a more "cyclised" city to go and meet them, wherever it is that they actually are now.

Surely this would be a far more productive thing to do, than to remain sitting at the top of some sacred mountain or other.

As the ever-informative Jan Gehl said about the City of Copenhagen: "They never put out a big master plan: let's make a lot of pedestrian space, let's make a lot of bicycle lanes, let's take a lot of parking out of the city, let's narrow all the traffic streets. Never. Because if you did that in one plan, you will lose the election right now, because nobody would believe it would work. What they've done in this city is that they've taken a little step every year for forty years; and there is a fantastic difference between what it was then and what it is now."

In the case of the routes shown on the map to the left, both have been proposed by Westminster.

In terms of distance, there's nothing much between them: the red-coloured route is only about 65 metres further.

Danny Williams says of this route: "the big and positive thing about this is that you will—by the looks of it—be able to bike north up [New] Bond Street, and that is a big deal indeed."

As the photo below left shows, if the route along New Bond Street is to be made two-way for cyclists, this would likely require the removal of at least one lane of motor-traffic. Whereas, as the photo below right shows, if the route along Harley Street is to be made two-way for cyclists, almost nothing would need to be done in terms of engineering (except probably at the junctions). For the record, I could code one or both routes using compass colours (e.g. here).

The red-coloured route is only 0.05 mile further than the green-coloured route, but as things currently stand, it's a good deal more fiddly.

The red-coloured route is only 0.08 mile further ...

Hannah Cagney says on the Cyclists in the City blog that there seems to have been little thought given to linking the grid to possible routes in other boroughs. In Hannah's view, the grid "poorly coordinates with river crossings, particularly at Chelsea Bridge, Lambeth Bridge, and Waterloo Bridge." I agree. I might also add that the so-called Central line route appears to end as abruptly as it starts.

I am going to take a look at the missing bits of an extended network in my next blog.

Saturday, 7 December 2013

This week has seen a Commons transport select committee investigation into cycle safety. Writing in The Guardian, Sarah Champion MP felt it gave "the panel the opportunity to refute common myths and prejudices and really explore the issues as they unfold." Not everyone saw it that way, however. Indeed, for some it was the quality of the questions which rattled cages, rather than the quality of the answers.

Is there a war ongoing between cars and bikes? Should cyclists be obliged by law to wear helmets? Should cyclists be licensed? Should cyclists be required to contribute financially to the upkeep of roads?

The answer to all of these questions is—no. But in a democracy—a democracy which is largely indifferent to the appeal of the bicycle, it must be said—probably it is necessary that these questions be asked. (Besides which, these questions were answered well and with good humour, so no harm done.)

The reaction of the media put me in mind of an episode of The Now Show from several weeks ago. Steve Punt noted how people have a tendency to jump to extremes very quickly. You can see this, he said, if you look at Twitter during a big football match. The other week, for example, first-half ...

How can you develop good policy when public perceptions can be so out of kilter with the evidence?

Or to rephrase that in more technical language:

How can the government not talk bollocks when the voters know precisely sod all about anything?

The answer is, they can't. So what happens is that governments constantly say one thing and do another, or they say one thing to one audience and another to another, and it's not because they're liars or hypocrites, it's because they're constantly balancing between facts and the random guesswork that passes for facts among us voters.

Would you say that it's safe to cycle in London?

Ashok Sinha: In general, yes. I would still say to people that with care and attention it is a safe way of getting about. But I think my answer would need to be nuanced. I think there are places in London at times in London where you are not protected as well as you should be as a cyclist, and you will face real risks, such as at major junctions. I advise people that it is safe to cycle in London, but at the same time, I am very wary about my children cycling in London, because I know that a mistake that can easily be made by a young person could lead to their death and serious injury.

So my answer has to be nuanced. I would say to people, "Yes, keep cycling, it is a safe way of getting around; but there are dangers in particular places and particular circumstances."

Is it better to cycle where there are lots of cyclists, or is it safer where there are fewer?

Ashok Sinha: Again, it depends. There are lots of cyclists crossing London's bridges during the rush hour these days, and there is, I think, a Safety in Numbers effect, where motor-vehicles see lots of cyclists together crossing those bridges and realise this is actually a normal mode of transport, people are just going about their business, going to work, and give them a wide berth. There are also places where it's safe to cycle, such as back streets, where there may not be very many other cyclists around, but the motor traffic levels are relatively low. So again, the circumstances will very much determine the level of safety that you experience.

Do you think there has been a panic about the recent spate of deaths and accidents in London, or is it a cause for real concern?

David Davies: I think it has certainly come to the forefront of everyone's attention. The Evening Standard has put each death on the front page [...] The Times campaign 'Cities fit for Cyclists'—so it has certainly come to the media's attention. If you look at it in a wider context, over a longer period of time, as I'm sure you know, this year there have been tragically fourteen cyclists' deaths, that is the same number as there was last year. And it is also worth pointing out that in London, and across the UK as a whole, there were considerably more pedestrians, considerably more motorcyclists, vehicle occupants as well, who die. So the number of cyclist deaths, although it's had huge attention, is quite a small minority. It's very welcome that cycling is getting this safety attention, but in some ways it's a shame that every time a pedestrian is run over in London, it doesn't merit similar attention.

How safe do you think cycling is in London compared to walking around the streets or actually going in a car?

David Davies: If you measure it in terms of casualties per mile travelled, then walking and cycling is broadly comparable, which perhaps shows walking is not as safe as people think it might be.

The health experts tell us that you will absolutely live longer on average if you are a cyclist than if you are inactive, so that public health benefit is very strong. There are different ways of looking at safety, though. The government monitors how many people consider it safe to cycle on the roads, and actually that figure went down last year, from 50% to 48% across the UK. If you compared that with Copenhagen, apparently 75% of cyclists considered it safe, and only 5% considered it unsafe. So we do not have a safe system, and I very much agree with Mr Sinha that you have to be competent, and you have to take care, and the safety record in London does depend on the skills of the road users, rather than segregation and the system.

[...]

How would the London Assembly encourage people to wear a helmet whilst riding a Boris Bike?

Val Shawcross: In fact the London Assembly transport committee—although it's done two reports now on cycling, Pedal Power and Gearing Up, and we're about to take our third look at cycling—didn't take a particular view on helmets, because I think there are arguments either way. Personally I would very much prefer people to wear helmets, and I think the head injury charities feel that too, but in terms of the cycling accidents we've had, and safety issues on cycling in London generally, I don't think it is the crucial issue. I think the crucial issue is very much more about road layout and space for cyclists.

[...]

I would just like to ask, to start with, the kinds of questions that actually perhaps sit with us having five different voices here today. This is a very hot topic, it's current, it's controversial, there is advice either way floating around, multiple arguments about the kind of engineering or education or enforcement that we need around cycling. It is also highly emotional, with fatalities recently. What in your view is the way to get a unified, and then persuasive, and then action-packed campaign from this situation?Ashok Sinha: If I may offer a suggestion. I think first if I may clarify my comments. David, I do believe that user-behaviour can only go so far, and actually the greatest dangers that cyclists experience on the roads are presented to them by the poor quality of infrastructure and the poor quality of—sometimes driving standards. As I say, somebody makes a perfectly innocent mistake, and our infrastructure lets them down, and the net result is somebody being killed or seriously injured.

So any campaign of the kind that you describe has to look at the root sources of danger. Now, we don't have to re-invent the wheel. They've done this in other countries: they've done this in the Netherlands, they've done this in parts of Denmark and Copenhagen, they're doing it in Berlin, they're doing it in Seville, New York, elsewhere. And they've said, "What are the principal sources of danger?" And they've identified:

poor quality cycle lanes, and these need to be offering proper protection to cyclists along busy and fast roads;

the lack of access to good routes away from major thoroughfares, that cyclists can use, that are quiet and convenient;

speeds that are too high—motor-traffic speeds that are too high—that don't give people enough time to react to the situation that they're experiencing or react to unexpected circumstances. And of course the high speed of motor traffic means—simple physics means—that the collision is likely to cause more damage;

too much through-traffic in residential areas—by cutting out through-traffic in residential areas you can make it much more attractive and safer for people to cycle.

So this is not to say that we shouldn't be looking at behaviour and we shouldn't be looking at training. I myself have had cycle training. But we do need to look at where the root causes of the danger come from and ameliorate them.

Miss Shawcross, do you want to say something?

Val Shawcross: Yes, if I can take one small step back and comment on the issue of the statistics and the dangers in general ... (The data shows that cycling and walking has become more 'dangerous' over recent years.)

I feel that there is relatively little mystery and a lot of consensus in London around what does need to be done, and I would certainly agree with colleagues from London Cycling Campaign that road infrastructure, particularly the treatment of junctions, speed, the presence of HGVs which may not be properly [...] fitted and could be—that kind of issue are the things that need to be dealt with.

And I think looking back over the period of time where we've had the latest programme—since the current Mayor has been in City Hall—of trying to promote the cycling revolution—for which there is great enthusiasm in London—I mean, this is seen as an enormously positive thing for our health and environment. But I think the early infrastructure was poor and was weak, and did not offer the appropriate levels of protection in the most dangerous environments. So I think we're on a journey ...

When you say cycling infrastructure, do you mean the cycling superhighways?

Val Shawcross: I do mean the cycling superhighways in particular ... (The reaction of cyclists to the first two cycle superhighways shows that many of them did not feel safe enough: the lines of blue paint disappeared at the most dangerous points. The point is also made that the design of the CS2X probably represents the type of infrastructure that should have been installed in the first place.)

[...]

I think the issue—if you're asking me to put my finger on the issue—it has been the issue of the balance of interests in sharing the road space. London is a congested city, we have a medieval road pattern in the centre of London: the issue has always been who gets the space on the roads, and who gets the time at the junctions? And I think if we are to achieve a cycling revolution, a safe cycling revolution, and the two go together [...] for the broader demographic to pick up, for women, for older people to pick up cycling, it will need to be much safer, and that's how we're going to achieve a cycling revolution.

May I just close with the same consensus campaign question, but with a non-London perspective.

Katja Leyendecker: I think—having listened to what people are saying here—I think the question might actually be a completely different one, and not so much about safety at all. I think it's about the future of our cities, and how we want to run our cities. We were talking beforehand about education and enforcement—I think we've done that. We've done that in London, and we've done that outside of London, and it's actually the engineering bit that is missing. It has been done in bits and pieces, but not in a continuous, and certainly not in a holistic look at the city—or at the city of Newcastle, for example.

Mr Davies.

David Davies: Having been involved with cycle infrastructure for quite a long time, I think as Val Shawcross said, it's not really a matter of the costs of the extra kerb, it's very much about the balance of interests, and it is not easy for local authorities to simply say, "We will have a continuous cycle route and ban parking all the way along this route—or take out a whole lane of traffic." These are really tough decisions for local politicians and the officers working for them. The technical designs are there, probably the money is there, but you've got to weigh up the pros and cons.

If I could say another thing. I think there's not been—I would say—emphasised enough so far. I think we have a very specific problem, certainly in London, and I think wider than that, in that it is large vehicles that have been responsible for most of the deaths in London this year, and there are opportunities to tackle that through the design of vehicles, the cabs, through the training of drivers, and a whole range of measures focused very much on that. And if you were to take out the deaths in London which involved large vehicles—tripper trucks specifically—so I think there are some very specific problems, and they could be tackled, and there are some discussions going on in Europe about the design of lengths and weights of large vehicles that could be—as an opportunity to modify these things.

Have we given the Cycle Superhighways too elaborate a title, and given people the impression that they are something more than they are? Which vehicles present the greatest danger to cyclists, and therefore make that the priority focus of doing something about it?Ashok Sinha: David is quite right. If we look at the number of—let's say deaths—focussing on those rather than on serious injuries—which are of course terrible and awful. About half of the deaths in London are due to collisions with HGVs, most of those being collisions with tipper trucks. I am sure there is a lot that can be done to improve vehicle design. We ourselves published about a year ago a sort of concept design for lorries that would make them safer on London's streets, that was produced by our senior campaigner, who is a former truck driver of many decades' experience.

But I go back to the point that even with the best equipped trucks—and of course the best trained drivers, who are obeying the rules and not driving for too long, and aren't tired, and so on—there will be occasions—especially around junctions and intersections—there's a possibility for collisions between cyclists and these large vehicles. And that is where you also need an engineering solution, especially at those locations.

But even more broadly, imagine trying to take your children to school. Do you really want to be mixing it with the lorries on the main road, even if you knew they were the best equipped lorries in the world? You probably don't, or you would probably be fairly wary of doing that. So it goes back in a sense to what Katja was saying: what kind of city do we want to have? And if we want to encourage a cycling revolution—and I think we all do on this panel and around London—then we also have to look at enabling people to be less fearful and [more] confident about their cycling experience.

[...]

Mr Sinha, you spoke of a number of black spots in London. When you speak to the local authority, and no doubt make recommendations about engineering modifications, what sort of response do you get?

Ashok Sinha: Oh, I'm very glad you asked that question. We're often told that when we suggest that international best practice should be adopted for the re-engineering or re-modelling of those junctions—which are often not safe enough for pedestrians and cyclists to get across—we're told that that kind of re-modelling is not feasible because of the negative impact that would have on traffic flows. Essentially there isn't enough capacity on the roads for that to be permissible. We're told that, because the modelling work that is undertaken by the traffic authorities says that London will go into gridlock. But first of all, these models are poorly validated, from everything that we can establish. Secondly, countries around the world—I go back to the examples on the continent—put safety first, and find out actually that the behaviour of people on the roads adapts, so with well-designed schemes you don't get gridlock. And thirdly, of course, there's modal shift. The better the facilitation for cycling and walking, the more people will walk and cycle and then the fewer people will drive for short distances. So we feel there's a straw man being put up against, high-quality, safe re-modelling of our urban spaces, and that straw man is the idea that London will grind to a halt, and I don't believe that to be true.

Would you say that it's safe to cycle in London? What in your view is the way to get a unified, and then persuasive, and then action-packed campaign from this situation?Have we given the Cycle Superhighways too elaborate a title, and given people the impression that they are something more than they are? Which vehicles present the greatest danger to cyclists? Tell us how we can protect cyclists.

About half of these questions were not even answered!

About half these questions could have been answered by a Google search by the MP. Or asking me. Or dozens of others.
— peterwalker99 (@peterwalker99) December 2, 2013

I got the sense that Ashok, Katja, Val, even Peter, would probably have preferred it if the select committee had gathered to talk about a cycling revolution. How do we encourage more people to take up cycling?

But this was an inquiry into cycle safety. Specifically, what can be done now to make cycling safer?

I like this recent comment from the aseasyasriding blog: "Why does it really matter anyway if people give up cycling? We’ve got more people cycling in London at the moment than we have had for decades and we still have totally crap infrastructure. Increased cycling levels don’t mean better cycling facilities. It just means more bereaved families. Let’s get the facilities first before we insist on persuading vulnerable people onto the roads by pretending we live in a fairyland where cycling is a wonderful dreamy experience."

Mr Gilligan, is it safe to cycle in London?

Andrew Gilligan: Yes it is safe. We've seen a dramatic fall in the number and the proportion of cyclists dying on the roads. In 2002, there were 118 million cycle journeys in London, of which twenty ended in death; last year there were 209 million cycle journeys of which fourteen ended in death. So the death rate per journey has more than halved. Serious injuries have come down as well. One journey in every 299 000 ended in serious injury in 2002; it's one in every 320 000 last year.

But I think there's two issues here: there's actual safety and there's perceived safety. On actual safety as I mentioned things are relatively encouraging, with one important caveat, which is that the serious injury rate has started to rise again. That is not to say, of course, that we couldn't and shouldn't do more, and we are doing a great deal more. We've invested a billion pounds in a major cycling programme: new roads, new junctions. But that's actual safety.

Then there's perceived safety—the issue of fear—and that is much more of a problem, we saw the poll today. Even though the figures I've quoted you objectively show that cycling is substantially safer than it was, 68% of Londoners do not believe the roads are safe. And the problem with that is that perceptions are much less in our control, than are, for instance, the physical state of the roads. We can do something about the roads, perceptions are largely in control of others, such as the media and cycle campaigners.

I'm worried about the debate on safety. We need to strike a balance between the understandable anger and concern that people feel about these deaths, and also the risk that we are scaring people away from cycling, that we are giving succour to those people who want to discourage cycling, and also that we are deterring future politicians from getting involved in this. One of the slight frustrations is that my boss, the Mayor, is actually probably doing more than any other politician in Britain for cycling, and yet he also gets more criticism than any other politician in Britain for cycling. And he doesn't mind that—neither he nor I mind that—we've both been in plenty of media storms in our time. But I think the risk might be that future politicians might say, "If that's the reward you get for spending a billion pounds, what is the point in getting involved in this area?"

[...]

The intention in this all-consuming focus on deaths we've seen recently is right: people want to create pressure for action to get more people cycling. But the execution is at risk of causing the opposite.

So in view of what you've said, where each of the fourteen deaths of cyclists in London this year is a great tragedy for every family involved, but you don't see it as a trend—in view of what you've said, what do you think the Mayor ought to be doing now in relation to cycling safety?

Andrew Gilligan: He needs to be doing what he is doing, and that is—we have a gigantic investment programme—it's, I think, two-and-a-half times bigger than the government is spending on the whole of the rest of the country put together. It £913m over ten years, it's front-loaded in the first three or four years, it includes a very large programme of segregated cycleways, superhighways, including two right across the heart of central London [...] and there's going to be a whole load of upgraded superhighways which are also going to be built to a much higher standard than the current ones.

The other thing we're doing is a lot about junctions, because essentially 85% of accidents resulting in injury or death happen at junctions in London, and we've just rolled out a new template cycle-segregated junction. We've issued pictures and drawings of it—ironically enough on the very day that the first of these spate of deaths happened [...]

Mr Fitzpatrick.

Jim Fitzpatrick MP: Mr Gilligan, you make some persuasive points about perception, and I certainly agree that Mayor Johnson's raised the profile, and some of the criticism he does get is unfair. But we wouldn't be seeing the pace of change that we are seeing now if it hadn't been for the recent—over the past two, three years—the recent deaths and injuries. And sad as that is, that's what's given the momentum to the changes, and the roundabout at the Bow flyover is a classic example ...

The Jubilee line route (shown in blue) is over 70% further than the direct route (shown in red). Why? Andrew Gilliganand Ashok Sinha both think cycling is safe in London.

The other thing to have happened this week is that Westminster have launched their draft Cycling Strategy. Their 'vision', seemingly, is "to make Westminster a national leader in cycling provision, making it safer and more attractive for a greater number of people, from all backgrounds, to cycle more frequently." This is very encouraging.

Closing remarks

The difficulty that I have with cycle campaigners is not so much that they are unduly influencing the public's perception of cycling. As another commentator on the aseasyasriding blog has noted: "The actions of us lot campaigning rarely reaches anyone outside the cycling bubble to any significant degree."

No, the difficulty I have is that within the cycling bubble, these cycle campaigners have a great deal of influence.

I have spoken to two cycling officers based outside of London who have never even heard of Cycling: the way ahead for towns and cities. Never even heard of it! The only publication out of Europe to answer the question how to begin, and they've never even heard of it!

This book "suggests some simple, inexpensive and popular measures, which could be implemented immediately." Sure, the impact of these measures is not likely to be massive. However, according to Cycling: the way ahead, "it will be real".

I can very well see how Space4Cycling excites campaigners' passions. It's a very compelling theme after all. In comparison, a comprehensive, city-wide cycle network introduced to a minimum level of functioning must sound utterly mundane. No, it's worse even than that. As more or less everyone within the cycling bubble will tell you, all that stuff has been tried before.

Except that it hasn't. At least, there isn't a town or city in this country which has a functioning cycle network.

One of the main features of the network-first approach is in fact the improvement of cyclists' safety. In the short-term, this is based on the implementation of 'soft' (easy-to-deliver) measures.

Comparatively, one of the main features of the Space4Cycling approach—maybe even the most important feature—is the development of a cycling environment which would encourage more people to cycle. This is based on the implementation of 'hard' (difficult-to-deliver) measures.

I don't know for certain, but my sense is that the main reason cycle routes such as the wiggly bit of the Jubilee line continue to be proposed is because it is just too troublesome for the authorities to "introduce" this route to a minimum level of functioning.

I hope not to have misunderstood Katja Leyenbecker when she says: "Laying firm foundations by getting the things right that have a big impact (policy, strategy, plans and engineering road design and layouts) is vital, because only then should we wonder about the small stuff (and that's where the current debate is stuck in a vicious victim-blaming circle)."

Monday, 2 December 2013

It is likely that the potential for increasing the number of cycling journeys in your town is very much greater than you might suppose. Whilst daily cycling may yet be a long way off for many of your fellow citizens, it is nevertheless a mode of transport which has the facility to play a significant role in mobility management.

Why have towns which are similarly situated to yours taken up the challenge of providing for the bicycle? As part of programmes to improve the quality of life, and to increase the appeal of public transport, what sort of role does the bicycle have to play in your town?Benefits for the community

The list of presumed or proven advantages which would result from an increase in the number of people who cycle regularly is difficult to quantify precisely. The pertinent factors are both numerous and complex. For the economic and ecological benefits in particular, there is simply no reliable method of calculating all the various savings which would accrue from the widespread use of the bicycle.

Nevertheless, these advantages are known, and can be grouped together under the following headings:

Economic benefitssuch as a reduction in the number of working hours lost due to traffic jams; lower healthcare costs due to the positive effects of regular exercise; and a boost to the household budget, with more money being available perhaps to spend on things other than the upkeep of a car.

Social advances such as the democratisation of mobility, making all facilities more accessible to both young and old, and also affording them greater autonomy.

Ecological impacts with a distinction between local, short-term effects—where the emphasis is on "the environment"—and non-localised long-term effects—where the emphasis is on "ecological balance".

Benefits for municipalities

As far as towns are concerned, the advantages of the bicycle are mainly linked to the quality of life, the quality of the environment, and the long-term savings made through the following:

• A reduction in the amount of traffic congestion, directly because one-time motoring commuters have changed their preferred method of transport, and indirectly because the use of public transport is made more attractive to commuters, thanks in part due to a combination of public transport and the bicycle.

Appeal of public transport: Having to switch modes
is a distinct disadvantage to public transport
passengers, given the discomfort of waiting and the
wasted minutes hanging around. Bicycles are an
effective answer to this problem.

• Better fluidity of traffic, which is indispensable, with lower pollution levels.

• Space savings on the road, which would ultimately result in a reduced expenditure on the highways. There is also the added possibility of using certain public spaces more imaginatively, thereby increasing the attractiveness of town centres.

• A general improvement in the quality of life (air pollution, noise pollution, public places, children’s safety), whilst residential areas become more attractive, particularly for families.

Even if we only stick to environmental considerations (pollution), without necessarily going into the details, or without trying to calculate the economic impact of the respective benefits and drawbacks of the various modes of transport, it is still reasonable to accord cycling the attention and funding it deserves. Any suggestions that facilities for cycling need to be compromised in some way can only be taken seriously with this in mind.

It should be entirely normal for planners and engineers to take regard of the bicycle during redevelopment projects, say, alongside cars and public transport and pedestrians and so forth, rather than trying to squeeze in the bicycle as something of an afterthought. The minimum, therefore, would be to make at least as much effort, comparatively, for bicycles as for the other modes, account being taken of the potential of each mode of transport. In this way, a mode of transport which is largely inaccessible to most people today would, over time, cease to be discouraged.

Many of the reasons he gives—freedom, it's quicker, it's fun, it saves you money, it helps you get fit, it helps you to live longer—are expressed in the images above.

Benefits for the private sector

It is quite clear that, as a result of heavy traffic, the private sector is less productive. Goods deliveries, commuters and business travellers all lose time stuck in traffic. The cost to business of road congestion has been estimated in the UK at £8bn (source).

As people who cycle regularly are in better form physically and indeed psychologically, they tend to be able to get more done at work. The benefits of the bicycle for the private sector go much beyond a more productive workforce, however.

For example, the international company Novartis has been encouraging its staff to come to work by bike for many years now. As part of one initiative, the company gave a free bicycle to every one of its employees who relinquished their right to a parking place in the company car park. Novartis is very well aware of what it gets in return: it saves on parking, it largely eliminates traffic jams in the immediate vicinity, it projects a more positive image to local people and the authorities, it offers better mobility to its employees, and it cuts down on the number of days lost each year through illness.

Benefits for the High Street

It is very far from the case that the vitality of commercial enterprises is dependent upon a High Street which is easily accessible to motorists. The contribution made by customers who arrive by public transport, bicycle and on foot is greatly underestimated, as indeed is the negative impact on our town centres in particular, and on the urban environment in general, as a consequence of providing for the car.

A study carried out in Bern, Switzerland, established the ratio between the value of purchases made and the parking area used by each customer, expressed as an annual average. The results showed that the ratio of profitability to parking was highest in the case of cyclists: €7,500 per square metre. Motorists came next with €6,625 per square metre.

On the face of it, this would seem paradoxical given that cyclists have no boot in which to put their purchases, meaning they are thus constrained by how much they can carry home. However, a separate study carried out in Munster, Germany, reaffirmed that motorists are not in fact better customers than cyclists. Indeed, in most situations, cyclists actually make for better customers. Because they tend to buy in smaller quantities, cyclists go to the shops more regularly (11 times a month on average, as opposed to seven times a month for motorists).

(Just to add, Cllr Tim Ward told Cambridge News: "Retailers want people coming in spending two to three hours shopping." Little surprise then that the council is investing much more on cycle parking.)

It must be stressed that what the High Street values most is activity. It would therefore be more accurate to say that the vitality of commercial enterprises is much more closely linked to the quality of the environment (rather than to the ease with which the town centre is accessible by car).

Summary

In the urban area, every trip made by bicycle rather than by car generates considerable savings and advantages both for the individual and for the community, such as:

• no detriment whatsoever on the quality of life (neither noise nor air pollution);
• preservation of monuments and planted areas;
• less room required both for moving and for
parking, and therefore a more profitable use of the public space becomes possible;
• less deterioration to the road network;
• a reduced need for new road infrastructures;
• an improvement in the attractiveness of town centres
(shops, culture, recreational activities, street life);
• fewer traffic jams and the economic losses which they entail;
• increased fluidity of car circulation;
• increased appeal of public transport;
• greater accessibility to typically urban services for the entire
population (including adolescents and young adults);
• parents freed from the chore of transporting their children (more time and money to spend on other things);
• considerable time-savings to be had for short- and medium-length journeys;
• the need for a second car is no longer so pressing (and hence an increase in the household budget becomes possible);
• etc.

Friday, 29 November 2013

In a recent article published in The Guardian, Andrew Gilligan wrote: "What, I've asked many cycle activists, what is it you want us to do that we're not doing already? The usual answer is "do it quicker". But we can't simply slap in panic changes that might make cyclists safer at the expense of other people's safety."

When cycle activists say, "Do it quicker", what does the "it" refer to, I wonder?

Plan, study and then introduce a cycle network? Ho, ho, ho, yes, very funny. I can just imagine them saying that!

Advanced Stop Lines

An anonymous commentator made the following point on Martin Porter's blog: "We don't need 'cycle superhighways', we need 'cycle superjunctions'. Cycling on a straight road is usually perfectly safe; junctions are where incidents occur. Most cycling infrastructure is undertaken where it is perfectly safe, and it tends to disappear where it is 'difficult'."

I am not going to take issue with him on his final point, but whilst it is true that most cyclist KSIs occur at or near junctions, nation-wide, just over a third of these incidents do not (source).

Even so, according to research published in November 2010 (Deaths of cyclists in London: trends from 1992 to 2006), there is a particular long-standing problem in London with HGVs. Despite accounting for just 4% of the traffic, freight vehicles were involved in over 40% (103 of 242) of all fatal incidents in the study period.

"Oh, look. The ASL box is the exact same shape as an HGV’s blind spot."

A recent comment on Mark Ames' blog caused me to raise an eyebrow: "Bike boxes are one of the most misleading thing designed on the roads, because they make you feel safe when you are not."

Bez from Beyond the Kerb—whose blog featured the pictures above—thinks they "act as bait for cyclists to ride up the feeder lane [...] often causing them to be alongside vehicles that are moving off (never a safe place to be) and often dumping them in the blind spot of an HGV."

However, this comment from Charlie Lloyd puts things in a completely different perspective:

"The interpretation of the photo with the yellow banded area around the cab is totally wrong. That banded area is the area that the driver of any large lorry first registered from 2006 MUST be able to see. Many older lorries have been brought up to this standard. Keltbray, the company owning the lorry in the picture, have these areas marked out in their lorry park. If the driver cannot see all the area before starting out then he/she must adjust the mirrors to make it visible.

"The discussion about ASLs and blind spots is incorrect. The dangerous blind spot that does remain is caused by high cabs with relatively small windows. This blind spot begins about 1.5 metres to the left of the cab and can continue for another 7-8 metres for the highest cabs. This area, well outside the marked area, is hazardous because large vehicles move to the right (left in Europe) before making a tight turn to near side.

"The very high level of mis-information on this matter is not helping cyclists, or the transport industry. It has not been helped by the over dramatic posters produced by TfL, based on a misunderstanding of the research into blindspots."

There are many, many criticisms of ASLs (e.g. here, here and here). These boil down as follows:

There are often other vehicles in the ASL;

The filter lanes can often be blocked; and

Most cyclists don’t understand where they should position themselves.

These criticisms are fair enough, and deserve to be taken extremely seriously. Indeed, Andreas from the London Cyclist blog emphatically talks about the importance of correct road positioning. However, these criticisms do not imply that ASLs are fundamentally flawed.

Sara Dorman, who writes the Dead Dog blog, speaks in praise of ASLs. She writes how riding through a junction without an ASL made her feel "uneasy". Conversely, at an almost identical intersection with an ASL, she found the riding experience "totally different".

"Not great," she says, but they do at least make things a "bit more comfortable". She continues: "So, while they may not turn all drivers into angels—and they certainly don't make cyclists invulnerable—I miss them when they're not there, which must mean they make a little difference at least."

In a non-vehicular cycling world—a world, indeed, as it ought to be—ASLs are entirely unnecessary. However, if the last thirty-five years is any guide, this world would still seem a long way off. As cycling advocates, we need to be able to deal with this.

The cycling community is now as united as it has ever been. Thanks in large part to a significant number of cycling advocates—most of whom I could name—we now have a destination which we can be proud of, and which we can all aim for.

To these people I say (quoting one of my favourite accountants): "If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them."

Other short-term measures

In the short term, then, junctions could be adapted and made safer for cyclists by installing Advanced Stop Lines. Where necessary, cyclists can be given a separate green light, or else research from Denmark suggests that the 'bike box' should be at least five metres deep (so that lorry drivers have a direct view of any cyclists who may be waiting ahead of them).

Another measure—which is linked to a different aspect of good cycle provision—is to make alternative cycle routes more numerous, more comfortable, easier to follow, and more convenient (by removing annoyances for cyclists, for example).

Cycling: the way ahead says (p36): "According to his or her physical aptitudes, balance, agility, rapidity of reflexes and clarity of perception, the adult cyclist will instinctively choose his or her routes (major or secondary roads, cycle path or track, direct changes of direction or crossings on foot). Cyclists must therefore be enabled to circulate everywhere, on both secondary roads and major routes."

Network first

The map below shows a proposed network design. The bits in red, green and blue are currently non-functioning.

Please note that the main shopping streets—Oxford Street, Regent Street, even New Bond Street—have not been incorporated. I am very well aware, to quote Cycling: the way ahead, that "motorists are not better customers than cyclists." On the contrary. It's simply that, if you want to go shopping here, I feel that it would be generally better for everyone if you would park up your bicycle close by and take a stroll. This is not a hard-and-fast rule, incidentally.

Assuming this design was generally agreeable, how much money, and how much effort, would be needed to get the network up and running?

You may recall that the National Cycling Strategy set a target for a 40% reduction in the overall cycling KSI by the year 2010 compared with the 1994-98 average.

There were 74 cycling deaths in London during the baseline period, at an average of 14.8. Since the beginning of 2011 to date—over the last three years in other words—there have been 44 cycling deaths, at an average of 14.67.

As the Mayor's Cycling Commissioner has said, this is not "carnage". I agree. He also points out: "We badly need better routes and safer roads." I agree with this, as well.

Note dated 2/12/13: Anyone interested in dancing on the head of a pin may first wish to consult this Full Fact report on cycling safety.Note dated 7/12/13: Andrew Gilligan testified that 85% of incidents resulting in injury or death to cyclists in London happen at junctions.

Sunday, 24 November 2013

I have recently started watching online chess commentaries on YouTube (Kasparov, Fischer, Carlsen, Tal, etc). There's a couple of American sites which I think are very good: OnlineChessLessons and thechesswebsite. Another one I like is by this Croatian chap called Mato Jelic. And then there's ChessWorld, which is presented by a guy who calls himself Kingscrusher (he's from Barnet).

With the Kingscrusher videos, when he gets to the critical position in the game, he usually gives you ten seconds to see if you can spot the key move. It is at this point that I usually mutter: "You could give me ten years, mate, I still wouldn't be able to see it!"

And yet, it's a funny thing about chess, because the same pieces that these Grand Masters are looking at are laid out in front of me. Why can't I see what they would do next? Why do I have to be told the answer?

In an incredibly inspiring presentation, Janette Sadik-Khan raises a similar point. She says: "Streets are some of the most valuable resource that a city has, and yet it is an asset that is largely hidden in plain view."

She continues: "The design of a street can tell you everything about what's expected on it. In this case [photo below], it's expected that you shelter 'in-place'. The design of the street is really to maximise the movement of cars, moving as quickly as possible from Point A to Point B, and it misses all the other ways that a street is used."

This street is designed to maximise the movement of cars.

Under the leadership of Mayor Bloomberg, it was acknowledged that with more and more people choosing to live in the built-up area, the design of our cities is going to be a key issue for our future. With the launch of PlaNYC in 2007, there was a recognition "that cities are in a global market place, and that if we're going to continue to grow and thrive, and to attract the million more people that are expected to move here, we need to focus on the quality of life and the efficiency of our infrastructure."

So the transport authorities in New York decided to work hard to refocus their agenda. Ultimately this was to result in them taking a new approach, and probably the best example of this can be seen at Times Square. Janette Sadik-Khan explains:

"People had tried for years to make changes: they'd changed signals, they'd changed lanes, everything they could do to make Times Square work better. It was dangerous, hard to cross the street, it was chaotic. And so, none of those approaches worked, so we took a different approach—a bigger approach—looked at our street differently.

"And so we did a six-month pilot. We closed Broadway, from 42nd Street to 47th Street, and created two-and-a-half acres of new pedestrian space. And the temporary materials are an important part of the programme, because we were able to show how it worked. And I work for a data-driven mayor, as you probably know, so it was all about the data. So if it worked better for traffic, if it was better for mobility, if it was safer, better for business, we would keep it; and if it didn't work, no harm, no foul, we could put it back the way it was, because these were temporary materials, and that was a very big part of the buy-in: much less anxiety when you think that something can be put back."

Imagining ourselves forward

In the chess videos I watch, it is usually the case that the breakthrough moment involves a sacrifice of some kind. Indeed, in some of the "immortal" games, it is often the queen which gets "sacked".

Always, always, of course, and at all costs, the king must be protected against the opponent's forces. In New York, it would rather appear that there is a new king on the throne: the New Yorkers themselves, the people, and the places they most wish to visit.

David Edmonds, Bobby Fischer's biographer, has said: "What chess is really about is a form of wisdom: it's about intuition; it's about imagining yourself forward."

In this sense, the use of temporary materials and paint is the equivalent of moving a piece, and then leaving a lingering finger on it. For those of us who do not have the ability to imagine ourselves forward—and most of us don't—we need to be able to see the piece in its new position before fully committing ourselves to the move.

Moving quickly

Even so, the evidence from New York is that it is still possible to move very, very quickly. "Instead of waiting through years of planning studies and computer models to get something done," says Janette Sadik-Khan, "we've done it with paint and temporary materials. And the proof is not in the computer model, it is in the real-world performance of the street."

She continues: "I can't underscore enough how much more quickly this enables you to move over traditional construction methods."

And then: "We also brought this quick-acting approach to our cycling programme, and in six years, turned cycling into a real transportation option in New York. I think it's fair to say ... [audience applause] ... it used to be a very scary place to ride a bike, and now New York has become one of the cycling capitals in the United States.

"And we moved quickly to create an inter-connected network of lanes ..."

And we can, too. We need to be mindful of what has gone before, of course. The following is adapted from Paul Gasson's 1999 report on the Camden Cycle Route Network:

The original 'theoretical' LCN featured a set of direct routes linking local centres and longer-distance destinations. However, following a series of ad hoc modifications and additions, the strategic nature of the network became somewhat blurred. The transition from concept to physical network was more than a little compromised, therefore.

In 1994 the network still remained essentially a paper concept, as barely a single cycle facility had been built in the borough for a decade. Fed up with this lack of activity, Camden Cycling Campaign suggested a number of modifications to the LCN, but these were rejected in early 1996.

However, thanks to an officer's hard work, many of the suggested routes were later to form the beginnings of a new Local Camden Cycle Network. Since then a considerable number of cycle facilities have been installed (such as Advanced Stop Lines). A couple of complete LCN routes have even been 'implemented', the most notable of which is the east-west route running to the south of Euston Road.

Whilst this is assuredly one of the better LCN routes in London, and of some benefit to existing cyclists, road space pressures meant that parking and poor driving standards degraded the effectiveness of this route. Thus, under the guidance of Campaign member Paul Gannon, the physically segregated Seven Stations Link between Paddington and Liverpool Street was proposed.

So whilst being denser than most of the other borough cycle networks, Camden's is very far from being complete, in the sense that it still has a large number of hanging links (for example, on one-way streets where there are no contraflow facilities).

Mill Lane, West Hampstead

A further problem exists which is intrinsically down to route quality. In common with most boroughs, Camden Council maintains that an LCN route is implemented only once it has been through the design / consult / build phases. This blind adherence to procedural bureaucracy, instead of common sense, led to an outcry from the Campaign during 1997-98, when the 1.5 km West Hampstead LCN route along Mill Lane was implemented at a total cost of £40 000. The facilities which actually appeared on the ground comprised 10 metres of advisory cycle lane and a 3 metre section of mandatory lane in the centre of the road (to help cyclists negotiate a junction). 95% of the cost was accounted for by the consultation process.

Route quality remains variable. There are routes such as Mill Lane—"where facilities are minimal, ineffective, and do not address the most basic of hazards that cyclists face"—but there are also some better quality routes, such as the popular north-south route through Somers Town, "which runs along relatively quiet streets, and has some dedicated cycle facilities."

And now I quote directly: "So whilst implementation quality in the borough is improving, most still falls well below what even the averagely competent cyclist would consider to be reasonably safe, let alone someone new to cycling. As the council has a target of doubling cycle use by 2002, the public's perception of the network's attractiveness and safety must be a key consideration when setting adequate design standards."

That was written nearly fifteen years ago. During this period, a cyclist has been killed in London once every twenty-four days, or something like that.

Network first

Steffen Rasmussen was invited to London last year to address a GLA committee hearing. The very first thing he said—the very, very first thing—was this: "The key word is an holistic approach and then a separation of functions."

I would like to consider how this approach might be pursued in Westminster. We know that the Mayor already intends that some exemplar schemes be installed at various locations around London. I won't be spending any time looking at these here and now, but I will just take a couple of moments to consider some of the non-functioning sections of a proposed bicycle network (shown in bold red on the map below).

One day, perhaps, I imagine that the whole of the south-east corner of Sloane Square would be closed to private motor traffic. What do you think?

In the case of Belgrave Square, the reason a two-way cycle facility is required along the southern side of the square is because it needs to link up with Hyde Park Corner in some way (please refer to the end of this blog for more detail).

The Belgrave Road route is currently the subject of a public consultation, and except to repeat a point that I have made before—that it doesn't join up to anything—I don't wish to say anything else.

In order for cyclists to be able to pass through the Victoria gyratory system more conveniently, two-way cycle facilities are required both on Buckingham Palace Road and on Ebury Street - Beeston Place.

Finally this leaves a proposed cycle route along Gloucester Street.

Gloucester Street at the junction with Sutherland Street

Gloucester Street at the junction with St. George's Drive

Gloucester Street at the junction with Belgrave Road

I was intrigued by "Option 4" (as reported by the Warwick Square residents). One of the points made in favour of this option was the possibility of direct access to Victoria Station from Nine Elms. The report says: "Network Rail could provide a dedicated walkway / cycle path as part of their future redevelopment plans for the station’s railway sidings."

A major problem with this—possibly—is detailed at Section 1.4.2 of Cycle Infrastructure Design (LTN 2/08), thus: "It is important to avoid creating long, narrow routes that are not overlooked by adjacent properties, as these can give rise to anti-­social behaviour." LTN 2/08 makes the point that the risk of crime can be reduced through the removal of hiding places along the route, and through the provision of security lighting, but I think it is generally regarded that the presence of passive surveillance from neighbouring premises or other users makes for the best option.

It is true that Option 4 provides for more direct access to Victoria Station from Nine Elms, but not by very much. It's only about 300 feet further than the alternative back street route shown in blue. My maths isn't great, but I think that if you travelled at an average speed of 12mph, this would equate to about 17 seconds.

My concern is obviously that TfL are proposing all sorts of wonderful schemes without establishing how they would fit in with the bigger picture. I also worry that by focusing on these grand projects, they are not giving any consideration to less glamorous but immediately available schemes.

The proposed Grosvenor Bridge cycle path I can see, but I do not believe that a sufficiently robust case has yet been made for Option 1. The unanimous view of Warwick Square residents was that TfL appeared only to be "considering this project from the viewpoint of those connected to the new development on the south side of the river." Just so. From Clapham Common up to Parliament Square, say, the Option 1 bridge does not confer any advantage when compared to the currently-available facilities (in terms of distance). Likewise for Camberwell Green up to Hyde Park Corner (via Belgrave Road).

If you live in Brixton, say, and want to get to Victoria, then Option 1 would be very good for you (assuming rumours of a "cycle bridge" with four flights of steps at each end prove to be ill-founded). I don't know. I am not saying don't do it, but I would want to see how this fits in with everything else. Specifically, my concern is that if we gain this on the swings, are we going to end up losing something else on the roundabouts?

Residents' parking

Paul Gasson reports that, following the 1997-98 consultation on Mill Lane, "the council supported the right of residents and businesses to continue parking along the road over and above the provision of cycle lanes. However the council did acknowledge that this outcome was not acceptable, and that something had to be done for future schemes."

Wisely (in my opinion), the consultation regarding the re-routed CS5 scheme steered clear of any debate about residents' parking. This didn't go down well with one commentator, however: "The new route is absolutely not going to be safe for a child or pensioner to cycle on. If you’re not going to design infrastructure that is worth building, then simply be honest and say, 'We can’t be bothered providing a safe route.'"

As Cycling: the way ahead for towns and cities notes: "Taking a political decision to reduce the space allotted to cars (whether for traffic or for parking) in order to create facilities for cyclists requires a certain amount of skill, entails explanations for the population, and has to be implemented gradually."

Once the network is up and running, it then becomes very much easier to decide how best to take it further forward.

Closing remarks

"And we moved quickly to create an inter-connected network of lanes ..." So said Janette Sadik-Khan, and all the evidence is that this approach is the most effective way forward. So why aren't we doing it that way?

About eighteen months ago, Ben Irvine wrote: "The Olympic authorities have shown that it is possible, and indeed desirable, to create a network of designated routes throughout London. They have shown how easy it is to put up signs and to paint new lanes and markings on the road surface, to make the network functional and visible, all within a very short space of time."

It's not as if "it can't be done", therefore. So let's give it a go, why don't we? What's to lose? If it doesn't work out, then no harm, no foul, we'll just put things back to how they used to be.